Guest Jodie Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 LOLOL.....I think we did this back at Christmas. I don't think anyone ever listed what publications came out when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I guess I don't understand why folks get so fired up about the leak of information of a paper that might be published in some journal-to-be-named at some vague date in the future. Why not just wait until a paper is actually published in an actual journal and then we can discuss what's actually in that paper? If there are real bigfoots out there, the modicum of scrutiny that folks like me might express about potential evidence for it in an Internet discussion forum will NOT keep that evidence from ultimately coming to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Ketchum stated earlier in 2011, that while they were doing testing that they were thrown a curveball, they probably found something that changed the study . Could that "curveball" have been thrown by TWO different pitchers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I have to totally agree with Saskeptic and have wondered this many times myself. " Why not just wait until a paper is actually published in an actual journal and then we can discuss what's actually in that paper?" While speculation can create intrigue, it could be way off the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I have to totally agree with Saskeptic and have wondered this many times myself. " Why not just wait until a paper is actually published in an actual journal and then we can discuss what's actually in that paper?" You mean you want people to NOT argue about it until then? Now that's just crazy talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) I R crazy.. Just to add... it seems as though some, not all, are taking it to seriously. We must know that until it's published, it's all speculation what is in the report, rumors are rumors. Talk about it, fine, just realize nothing is for certain at this time. Assume ... Edited January 31, 2012 by Wheellug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Genus name (Homo) + specific epithet (sapiens) = binomial "scientific" name for a species. Note that the genus (adjective "generic") is ALWAYS capitalized and the specific epithet is NEVER capitalized, and both are set apart in text either by italics or underlining. A species may be subdivided into subspecies. If there are formally recognized subspecies within a species, then the name extends to a trinomial, e.g., Homo sapiens sapiens. Some authorities consider Neanderthals to have been a subspecies of Homo sapiens, i.e., Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Others consider Neanderthals to have been a separate species from us, i.e., Homo neanderthalensis. As my avatar indicates, I am a fan of Ernst Mayr and, by extension, the explanatory power of his "biological species concept." To my knowledge, the available evidence suggests rather easy gene flow between Neanderthals and our own ancestors. Therefore, the two organisms were not reproductively isolated and should be considered variants of the same species, i.e., different subspecies. Referring to the bolded part. I do not believe that gene flow was all that easy. If it was, I suspect we would see much more neanderthal DNA in modern humans. As it stands only around 1-4% of our DNA is neanderthal in origin. This suggests to me that reproduction between the two groups may have been quite a bit more difficult. Not all species are clearly demarked by sterility. Horses and donkeys can produce mules that are usually sterile but some mules can and do reproduce as well. Lions and tigers are much the same but perhaps more capable of reproduction than mules. I suspect that neanderthals and sapiens had some degree of sterility between them. Some forms of reproductive isolation are not due to sterility at all. Some hybrids simply do not thrive like their pure bred brethren do. This is the case with polar bear/grizzly hybrids for instance. The hybrids are perfectly fertile but they seldom perform as well as their pure bred relatives meaning they survive poorly or attract mates rarely. Sapiens and neanderthals shared habitat in the middle east for roughly thirty thousand years. If they were perfectly capable of interbreeding then more neanderthal genes would be found I think. Some of the DNA we found have immunological functions and suggests that there was some benefit to modern humans from the mixture but few other neanderthal genes have been identified with useful functions. Some of the DNA has been said to be useless although I suspect this DNA codes for small or minor variations that we simply haven't identified yet. It seems to me that such a small survival rate of neanderthal DNA in modern humans says that gene flow was restricted by a reduction in conception rate or an increase in the mortality rate of the offspring. Either cause (or both) would suggest that neanderthal and sapiens were two separate species. Why not? The reasoning seems circular, since you can't prove that negative. There is only one Homo sapiens species. Period. This is basic in the modern classification system started by Linneaus. The genus Homo can have numerous species but each species gets its own species name: sapiens, neanderthalensis, erectus, habilis et al. A new species of Homo can get a new name but a new species of Homo sapiens is a nonsensical statement. Very Interesting article, Zigoapex. It has always been of interest to me that, if Bigfoot does not exist, that is not necessarily the end of the story as it will almost certainly be possible to create such a creature in the future. I remember raising this issue back on BFF 1, but no one was interested in debating the issue in those days. I can't figure out why anyone would bother to create a humanzee. They would not be economical and why would anyone want to open the moral can of worms? It's just too creepy to ponder. Not that there would be much difficulty in theory. Humans and chimpanzees have very similar chromosomal structures from what I understand. Somewhere in our evolution two chromosomes joined together to make one chromosome. This wouldn't be a huge difficulty for the resulting individual but may contribute to reduced fertility. Not insurpassable evolutionarily. A humanzee would probably be at least capable of producing some gametes I suspect. How is that even possible? Do you have a source for this claim? RayG This might depend on how you define the word "human" Some people like africans, jews and australian aborigines weren't always considered humans. Some people do not think a human embryo qualifies. Then there are people like Hitler, Idi Amin, Osama Bin Ladin who are sometimes considered "inhuman" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Referring to the bolded part. I do not believe that gene flow was all that easy. If it was, I suspect we would see much more neanderthal DNA in modern humans. Maybe so. Thanks for providing a perspective supporting separate species status. You're in good company with the Smithsonian, for example. Here are some other papers illustrating why this issue has been difficult to resolve. Enjoy! Tattersall and Schwartz 1999.pdf Trinkaus 2007.pdf Mason and Short 2011.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Regarding whether Dr. Ketchum was biased at the outset of the study, meaning that she was operating from the view that the samples she was examining were from Bigfoot, really should be of no consequence. Having trusted sample submitters, with clear chains of custody, could allow her to start from that point. Let's see... she had on piece of flesh from one that was murd..um... collected, blood from a plate that was booby trapped with glass shards with accompanying video of the subjects responsible, hairs that were collected immediately after the tribal subject ran off, just to name a few. So it's pretty clear that Dr. Ketchum knew that she was looking at suspected Bigfoot samples. She can be biased all she wants about that. What would make or break the study is when these samples are submitted to different labs without all the stories attached to them, and then those results are put up against them. There is no bias there. The DNA doesn't lie. It's like the countless paternity tests I've been subjected to. Going into them, the labs are fairly biased and testing for presumptive AZBIGFOOT, thankfully they never are able to pin that down. TOTALLY J/K by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 This might depend on how you define the word "human" And it still won't change the pesky little fact that humans are members of the species Homo sapiens. This is in opposition to the claim Mulder presented three days ago -- that an animal could be Homo sapiens and NOT be human. (post #1801 of this thread) That seemingly impossible claim is what I questioned, remains unanswered and unsupported, and I'm guessing only Mulder can provide us with a source for such a claim, if one even exists. Had Mulder provided a factual source to begin with, you'd have heard very little from this a-hat. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 There is only one Homo sapiens species. Period. This is basic in the modern classification system started by Linneaus. The genus Homo can have numerous species but each species gets its own species name: sapiens, neanderthalensis, erectus, habilis et al. A new species of Homo can get a new name but a new species of Homo sapiens is a nonsensical statement. Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies of homo sapiens, so there can be other subspecies of homo sapiens. Subspecies (commonly abbreviated subsp. or ssp.) in biological classification, is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank (plural: subspecies). A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more, never just one. (However, all but one subspecies may be extinct, as in Homo sapiens sapiens.) Copied here for information only: Wikipedia (Human Taxonomy): Genus - Homo [or humans; specific and specialized development of memory/learning/teaching/learning application (learning driven ethology)] Species - Homo habilis [refined stone technology; earliest fire control] Species - Homo ergaster [extensive language, complex articulate language] Species - Homo erectus [fire control, cooking; aesthetic/artistic refinement of tools] Species - Homo heidelbergensis [possible earliest sanitary burial of deads, accompanied with symbolic/formal supplement] Species - Homo sapiens [further development and specialization of learning application; active environment transformation, acclimatization and control; infrastructures and advanced technology] Subspecies - Homo sapiens idaltu Subspecies - Homo sapiens sapiens In other words, Modern Humans are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, and it is perfectly possible in theory that other humans (Homo sapiens) could exist but not be H. sapiens sapiens. Mike What doesn't make sense here Anfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Have y'all considered the strangeness of the NDA's? All scientific work that I have known of doesnt't feature nDA's. The data is discussed freely and openly even during peer review. Scientists go to symposiums and discuss findings pre-publication all the time. The only reason these NDA's exist is for $$$$ reasons. It makes no sense. Neither does all the secrecy in regards to publication dates ,content ....etc It smells like a big cash grab rather than a true scientific paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I could not agree more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Regarding whether Dr. Ketchum was biased at the outset of the study, meaning that she was operating from the view that the samples she was examining were from Bigfoot, really should be of no consequence. Having trusted sample submitters, with clear chains of custody, could allow her to start from that point. Let's see... she had on piece of flesh from one that was murd..um... collected, blood from a plate that was booby trapped with glass shards with accompanying video of the subjects responsible, hairs that were collected immediately after the tribal subject ran off, just to name a few. So it's pretty clear that Dr. Ketchum knew that she was looking at suspected Bigfoot samples. She can be biased all she wants about that. What would make or break the study is when these samples are submitted to different labs without all the stories attached to them, and then those results are put up against them. There is no bias there. The DNA doesn't lie. It's like the countless paternity tests I've been subjected to. Going into them, the labs are fairly biased and testing for presumptive AZBIGFOOT, thankfully they never are able to pin that down. TOTALLY J/K by the way. I believe that is what they did,the samples were sent out to other labs with no information on the samples as to what species they were . I could be wrong but i don't think the paper would be excepted if that were not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Have y'all considered the strangeness of the NDA's? All scientific work that I have known of doesnt't feature nDA's. The data is discussed freely and openly even during peer review. Scientists go to symposiums and discuss findings pre-publication all the time. The only reason these NDA's exist is for $$$$ reasons. It makes no sense. Neither does all the secrecy in regards to publication dates ,content ....etc It smells like a big cash grab rather than a true scientific paper. I have considered the NDA's and actually I couldn't disagree more. For a couple of reasons. Obviously the subject matter is something that is extraordinary right off the bat. It's been said a million times but it truly would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever. People are going to take whatever steps necessary to make sure they get the recognition they deserve should they be able to pull this off. There has to be fears that at any point someone could sell out the team, steal enough proof, go rogue and attempt to cash in all for themselves, ruining years of work in the process. You also have to remember, many of the people involved in this are not scientists, so this is not normal scientific work with symposiums and such. They are hunters, businessmen, former police officers, etc. who may not necessarily know of or care for the scientific method. If they come out with their poor interpretations of findings, completely butchering subjects as technical as DNA, it is going to come off as extremely non-academic and poorly put together. Of course there is a financial aspect to this, it's been a given in the general public that the first person or group to "prove" the existence of Bigfoot is going to get rich. Big deal. If Melba Ketchum and Adrian Erickson put up the work and money, and did it, then they should be rewarded. Leakers, sellouts, and minor players should absolutely be prevented from undercutting or derailing the whole thing so they can weasel their way to glory. Not saying anyone intends to, but protections have to be put in place. Then again, this may all be bullcrap, and it may not matter one bit. Edited February 1, 2012 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts